Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

Introduction

One of the principles commonly taught around these parts is the beginninglessness [I know that neither this word nor even "beginningless" are in the dictionary but I just can't find words that are in the dictionary and that do the same job, so I'm going to use those words freely] of time: that causes go back and back without limit. This essay is an attempt to debunk that principle using philosophical reasoning, and then to explore the possibility of an alternative that does not require "something from nothing", which is the objection that this forum's proponents of beginninglessness have with a beginning to time.

The principle of beginninglessness entails that causes go back and back without limit; that there is no "first cause". Around these parts, causality is defined very broadly so that it covers a variety of phenomena, but here we're concerned with temporal causality: that variety of causality in which cause precedes effect in time. Folk around here generally reject the notion of something coming out of nothing, and for that reason they reject that the Big Bang - if it is even a relatively accurate model - represents the beginning of time. In other words, it is held that even if the Big Bang is an accurate model, it must necessarily be preceded temporally by causes - perhaps by a prior collapsing universe which re-expanded, or by something else capable of generating the Big Bang - and that these causes must necessarily recede without limit, such that the universe is beginningless and the past is without limit, or, in other words, that the past is infinite. I want to make it clear that the type of infinity that I'm referring to here is solely a mathematical infinite with respect to time; it is distinct from the Infinite used around these parts as a synonym for the Totality.

This model, however, has several problems that are intuitively recognised by many people, some of whom have posted about them here in threads such as "Slick Argument" and "Can causality be infinite?". I will now attempt to elaborate on those intuitions so as to add sufficient meat to them as to make them convincing to even those with opposing viewpoints.

The first problem with beginningless time: the traversal of an actual infinity

The first problem is that of an infinite amount of time having passed prior to the present moment, and is raised in the first thread linked to above. This problem is often referred to in words similar to these: "it is impossible for an actual infinite to exist, and the traversal of an infinity of time constitutes such an impossible actual infinite". The way that this statement is sometimes interpreted is that if we count in some unit of time such as seconds, we will never actually reach infinity, which seems to be what a universe of an infinite past requires.

A response to the first problem with beginningless time

Supporters of the possibility of an infinite past commonly respond to this problem by claiming that it is based on an error because it relies for its effect on the notion of a beginning, whereas an infinite past by definition has no beginning. This response runs that the perspective of the problem is faulty, and that it requires us to imagine ourselves counting from some fixed time in the past and actually reaching infinity, and that it is only then that we can claim that this is impossible. Those who provide this response agree that such a situation is, indeed, impossible, however they point out that it does not do the notion of an infinite past justice, because there is no starting point from which counting begins. In other words, they argue that this supposed problem is simply question-begging. They argue that we should - instead of thinking in the terms of the problem, and to understand infinite regress - take the present moment as our perspective and recognise that no matter how far back we look, there is always further to look: this, they argue, is what it means for the past to be infinite.

Rebutting the response to the first problem with beginningless time

At first glance, this response seems to be effective, however it comes apart when we elaborate on what the word "actual" in the original problem description means in that context; that word being one which the response above ignores. To say that a moment is past is to say that it was once the present moment, before the present moment moved forward from that moment. All past moments have been "actualised" in this manner, and it follows from this that all of the past has been actualised, which is what the phrasing of the objection - "actual infinite" - refers to. The fact that the past has been actualised means that the present moment has traversed over the entirety of that past moving in a forwards direction. It is not the case that it will happen, and will be a continuous and never-ending process, as is the case with the future; it is the case that it has happened and is a process which has ended: the entirety of the past has been traversed by the ever-moving marker that is the present moment. Therefore, without requiring a beginning and hence begging the question, our objection that it is impossible for the past to be infinite is correct, because we know that an infinite past would have to be an actualised infinity that would have to have been traversed (by the forward-moving marker of the present moment), whereas we know for sure that it is impossible to actually traverse an infinity: by definition there is always more to traverse of an infinity.

If the preceding paragraph didn't convince you of the impossibility of an infinite past, then consider how to answer the question: "Given a beginningless universe, how much time has elapsed in total up until the present moment?" There is only one answer to that question: "An infinite amount". The definition of an infinite amount, however, is that there is and can be nothing larger than it, whereas in the case of a beginningless universe, time would still be ticking, so that there would be (or at least could be imagined) a larger amount of time than the infinite amount that had already passed: this is clearly impossible.

If you're still not convinced, then consider the difference between the perspectives implied by the two statements, "an infinite amount of time precedes us" and "an infinite amount of time has elapsed". Supporters of an infinite past will focus your attention on the seeming sense of the former perspective, whilst ignoring the nonsensical nature of the latter.

Here's an analogy for those whose lack of conviction is bordering on terminal: imagine yourself in a spaceship travelling in a straight line; for purposes of this analogy your universe is infinite in physical extent so that behind you lies an infinite distance and ahead of you lies an infinite distance. Also for purposes of the analogy, beings in your universe are immortal. A spaceship travelling in the same direction docks with yours, and you converse with its captain, who, like you, is travelling in a straight line. You ask him, "Where are you headed to?" He tells you, "I'm going all the way - I'm heading for infinity". You respond, "That's fine - you'll never get there, but credit to you for persevering. So where have you come from?" He responds, "I've come all the way - I've come from infinity." How would you respond? One sensible answer would be something like, "Don't be ridiculous, you can't have come from infinity - you can't have travelled an infinite distance - you can only approach infinity." In a similar fashion is how we ought to answer someone who believes that the journey of the ever-forward-flowing present moment - analogous to the travels of the spaceship captain who docked beside you - has been an infinite one.

My final attempt to convince the remainder of you of the validity of problem number one with the notion of an infinite past is to consider that for an infinite future we might say something like, "Time will never arrive at the future infinity because a future infinity is approached but never reached", and to ask you to consider the analogous statement for an infinite past. That statement is something like, "Time has never been at the past infinity because a past infinity is proceeded from but was never inhabited." Yet how can there be an aspect of the past that time has never been at?

The main problem with the seemingly effective response to the problem, then, is that it looks backwards in the reverse direction of the actual flow of time, ignoring what it means to be an actual infinity. It's all very well to conceive of an infinity by looking back into the ever-receding past, as one does when looking into the ever-proceeding future, however time does not flow backwards like that: it flows forwards; the past has actually happened in a way that the future has not yet, and it's when taking the correct perspective of forward-flowing time that the response is seen to be ineffective.

The second problem with beginningless time: the paradox of the indeterminacy of the present moment

The second problem is that of the indeterminacy of the present moment given an infinite past, and it is raised in the second thread linked to above. It can also be expressed as a paradox, which can be arrived at through a hypothetical. For the hypothetical, start by assuming an infinite past. Then imagine a digital counter with an unlimited power supply whose digital display has an unlimited width (let's say, for argument's sake, that the universe is physically infinite too so that notions of unlimited power and unlimited width make sense). This digital display ticks over once every second. It can display not only positive numbers, but also zero, and negative numbers. It has continuously existed forever, and will continuously exist forever. In other words, no matter how far back you look into the infinite past, this digital display was there, and had been there continuously for eternity, and no matter how far you look into the future, this digital display will be there, and will have been there continuously for eternity.

Now try to answer the question: what is the current readout on the digital display? Is it a negative number? Is it zero? Or is it positive? For that matter, when did or will it display zero? Clearly, since it can go back infinitely in the negative direction, there is no problem with incorrectly assuming a beginning, but let's consider how we would answer this question if there were a beginning. First we would work out how long has passed since the beginning, then we would work out what the readout was on the display at that beginning, and then we would add one to the other. Let's for argument's sake assume that the universe is exactly 13.75 billion years old - this is in line with current scientific understanding - and that the counter began at zero: thus, ignoring fractional days in a year, our answer would be that the counter would display 13.75 billion years multiplied by 31,536,000 seconds per year for a final readout of 433,620,000,000,000,000.

Can this process be applied to find a reading for a universe with an infinite past? No, it cannot, because there is no beginning state of the readout, however, there is an amount of time that has elapsed, which provides a basis on which to proceed, to turn this hypothetical into a thought experiment. Let's assume for the thought experiment that the display readout for the beginningless universe is that which was calculated for the universe with a beginning: 433,620,000,000,000,000; the difference being that this counter had prior to zero been displaying negative numbers for an infinity, whereas the counter for the universe with a beginning started at zero and never displayed any negative numbers at all. Now we have a fixed number. Let's ask, then, given this number, how much time has elapsed. The answer - because the timer has existed for an eternity - is "an infinite amount". Let's, then, for the thought experiment's sake, pick a different number - a number from the past - say, 433,620,000,000,000,100 seconds ago, which puts the counter's display at -100. How much time had elapsed up until that point? The answer is the same: "an infinite amount". Let's also, for the thought experiment's sake, pick a number from the future, say ten years into the future, which puts the counter's display at 433,620,000,315,000,000. How much time would have elapsed up until that point? The answer is still the same: "an infinite amount".

In other words, we have no way of distinguishing one value from another. At any given moment, any and all values should be displayed on the counter, because the same amount of time precedes them: an infinite amount. Given an infinite past, this counter's display is indeterminate. This is a paradox that the proponents of the possibility of an infinite past need to find a way to resolve.

The third problem with beginningless time: the paradox of infinity preceding infinity

There is a third problem which was not explored in either of the threads that I linked to, and which likewise manifests as a paradox that can be arrived at through a hypothetical. For this hypothetical, imagine a particular sub-atomic particle, and by particular I mean that not only does it have a unique type, but also that there is only one particle of this type that actually exists (or rather, that has existed, as shall be seen). The particular properties of this sub-atomic particle that are of interest are that it decays at some completely random moment within an infinity of time, and that it has (or had) always existed. In other words, if this particle came into existence at this present moment, then it would decay at some time in the (hypothetically) infinite future, but the particular time at which it would decay would be completely random and unpredictable: it could be in a microsecond from now or it could be at a time so far into the future that the number of digits of that date couldn't be written down on a piece of paper the size of the solar system. All that we know is that within an infinite period of time, the particle will eventually decay. Keep in mind, though, that it is not the case that the particle came into existence at any point in time: it has (or rather, had) always existed.

Let's now answer this question: would this particle have decayed by now?

Because an infinite amount of time has passed prior to the present moment, and because the particle decays within an infinite amount of time, the answer must be "Yes".

Consider the following oddity though: we can say the same thing for any given moment prior to this one. In other words, for any given moment before this one, an infinity of time has already passed such that we can be sure that the particle has decayed. However, and this is where the paradox manifests: there are an infinity of such past moments, because there is no limit to how far back we can go into the past and have this circumstance obtain - that circumstance being that there is an infinity of time within which the particle must have decayed prior to that moment. The paradox then is this: that we can trace back an infinity, and still an infinity precedes us. Infinity is preceded by infinity, which is nonsensical. This is another paradox that the proponents of the possibility of an infinite past need to find a way to resolve.

Another known paradox with actual infinities

These are not the only paradoxes associated with infinity, and the Wikipedia article on Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel raises another one. Under "Cosmological argument", that article states: "Because the Hilbert's paradox is so counterintuitive, it has often been used as an argument against the existence of an actual infinity". It quotes William Lane Craig (and I'll cut this quote short; the editing is mine and not Wikipedia's) as follows: "Although there is nothing mathematically impossible about the existence of such a hotel (or any other infinite object), intuitively no such object could ever exist, and this intuition is a specific case of the broader intuition that no actual infinite could exist. [A] temporal sequence receding infinitely into the past would constitute such an actual infinite".

There is nothing to disagree with in that quote.

Escaping the dilemma: neither beginningless time nor a beginning of time out of nothing

We are now stuck on the horns of a dilemma. It would seem that time cannot be beginningless, because that would entail an actually infinite past, the concept of which has just been shown to be vexed with insurmountable problems, whereas it seems that it can't have had a beginning either, because that would seem to imply that something came out of nothing, which seems to be at least as problematic as the paradoxes just noted with respect to an infinite past. Is there a solution to this dilemma? There are at least strong hints of it in versions of modern cosmology and theology, and this essay will take its inspiration from those fields to present some hope of an escape from the dilemma.

To start with, let's examine the rest of that William Lane Craig quote from Wikipedia (the edit is mine): '[T]ime must have "started" at some point. Since "time" cannot be started by any temporal thing, and every action must have a cause, this cause must be God.' The reasoning in this claim is sound up until the word "God": the God that Craig believes in is a conscious one, and to consciously create something requires that God be temporal - willing something into being is a process, and processes occur within time - whereas his (sound) reasoning leads us to the conclusion that the cause of time must itself be atemporal. We can thus disqualify Craig's God from the conclusion, but is it possible to find some other atemporal cause for time? It would seem to be our best hope of freeing ourselves from the horns of this dilemma.

Here is where we find intriguing ideas in those variants of modern cosmology which rely upon quantum notions to explain how universes form. I want to emphasise that my understanding of these concepts is secondhand at best, but that even if what I describe does not correctly match the theoretical models on which I intend them to be based, it does not matter: it is more important that they be a possible route off the horns of this dilemma than that they are scientifically accurate.

The atemporal creativity of the quantum principle

The basic idea behind this model of modern cosmology is that there is some quantum principle that allows bubbles of oppositely polarised energies to emerge out of nowhere and out of no time, and that these oppositely polarised energies, in rare cases and if appropriately formed, expand into a universe, thus creating the time and space of that universe out of "nothing". These bubbles that can birth a universe are sometimes described in terms of "quantum fluctuations" or oppositely-paired "virtual particles"; I will stick with "quantum fluctuations".

The quantum fluctuations arise out of nothing at all except the quantum principle: thus their grounding is atemporal and non-spatial; there is no space or time for quantum fluctuations except that which is generated by them. It is therefore false to speak of this quantum principle out of which quantum fluctuations arise as existing "before" the universe, because time is a property of the universe but not of the quantum principle: outside of the context of the universe, there is no time, and no "before". If anything, the most accurate way of trying to conceptualise how the quantum principle relates to the spatio-temporal universe with which it is associated, is to think of it as being cotemporary with every moment, past, present and future.

Ameliorating the doubt of preferential treatment for the initial moments

This is where the first glimmer of doubt as to the legitimacy of this proposed mechanism slips in: we are to think of the quantum principle as being, in an atemporal sense, cotemporary with every moment, and yet its primary effects arise in a temporal-like fashion with the beginning of the universe. Why should these beginning moments be emphasised above all others if the quantum principle is indeed atemporal and in a sense cotemporary with all moments? It does seem strongly suggestive of the existence of time prior to the universe's beginning, in which case we are back to the impossible beginninglessness.

These particular doubts could be ameliorated if every moment were to be as directly dependent upon the quantum principle as the beginning moments. Luckily enough, in this model, they are: quantum fluctuations spontaneously produce quantum effects in existing universes at truly random times and in truly random locations, those times and locations being drawn from the entirety of spacetime; in fact, quantum fluctuations form the very bedrock of all spacetime in something called quantum foam.

The wrongly framed questions of where and when the quantum fluctuations occur

Another doubt that arises is this: I've just explained that quantum fluctuations can produce effects within spacetime, but originally I described them as occurring out of a quantum principle which is beyond spacetime - what, then, does it even mean for a quantum fluctuation to occur absent spacetime? What does it occur "in", and "when" does it occur? It seems that as humans, firmly enmeshed in the flow of time, it is almost inevitable that we will seek an answer to these questions, whereas it seems that there is no real answer, and we must just as inevitably return to that old chestnut: "the questions are wrongly framed". Those rare quantum fluctuations that are formed so as to do so create space and time, but do not exist within it, although other quantum fluctuations do have effects within the spacetime of universes, to the extent of forming its very bedrock.

The trouble with time-flows generating time-flows

It is said in some variants of this model that quantum fluctuations "within" an existing universe can also create new universes with disconnected spacetimes, but this concept strikes me as troublesome. The quantum fluctuations in an existing universe occur at specific times, so are those times "before" the beginning of the universes which they create? The flow of time of a created universe is disconnected from the flow of time of the universe within which a quantum fluctuation spawned it, but can it be said that the time-flow of the to-be-created universe "does not exist yet" prior to the quantum fluctuation in the universe that spawned it? How can it be said of a time-flow that it does not exist yet? A flow of time as a whole can not be subject to notions of temporality! It cannot be said of an entire flow of time that it exists, has existed, or will exist, for these are concepts that apply within a time-flow, and not to a time-flow as a whole. It seems to me, then, that the notion of a universe with a disconnected flow of time being generated by an existing universe with its own flow of time is a notion which is at the very least difficult to make sense of, if not outright nonsensical.

The nature of the quantum principle

Due to its troubling nature, I will set aside the notion of the effects of quantum fluctuations in existing universes creating new universes with unique spacetimes, and will instead focus on the original proposition: that out of a quantum principle, quantum fluctuations create new universes which bring space and time into existence. What, then, is the nature of this quantum principle, and what is the nature of its creativity?

One way to conceptualise its nature is as being somewhat analogous to gravity. Like gravity, it has effects on spacetime. Like gravity, it is not a physical entity: it is instead an abstract principle that nevertheless produces effects. It could be thought of as being transcendent, because it is beyond space and time; it could also be thought of as being the referent of the Bible's famous proclamation from John 1:1-3:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

The quantum principle could be viewed as God's Word in the sense of being the abstract and non-physical principle out of which everything arises and is sustained.

Caveats

Regarding the nature of the quantum principle's creativity: you might notice that in describing the quantum fluctuations and their effects, I've used words like "generate" and "emerge". These words imply the passage of time, yet the source to which I was applying those words (the quantum principle) is an atemporal one, of which time has no passage. Even the word "creativity" implies the passage of time: something new is born into the present that did not exist in the past. This is the most troubling aspect of the model: that an atemporal source generates temporal effects, especially given that time is an ongoing, continuous flow. We thus far in the model that I've described have no explanation for our experience of a moving present moment - of a flow of time - nor of how the fact that time flows relates to the atemporal quantum principle, and how an atemporal principle can generate effects within time. Perhaps within science there are explanations, but if so, then my very limited knowledge does not afford me any of them.

Something from nothing and ultimate questions

It could in a way be said that the manner in which the quantum principle created the universe is a case of "something from nothing", except that the "nothing" referred to is purely physical and temporal - in other words the nothingness of there being no space and time: there is of course still the "somethingness" of the creative quantum principle itself, so that in the end, in absolute terms it is not true to say that "something was created out of nothing", and we escape the usual objection applied to the case of time having a beginning.

The model that I've outlined in this essay does not provide an answer to that question-of-questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - where that something is at least the quantum principle itself. It is not, then, the ultimate of explanations, it is simply a partial explanation of origins.

Conclusion

So, to conclude: am I insisting that this model is the definitive solution to the question of origins? I am not: questions and issues remain; I am, though, asserting that a beginningless past is impossible, that there is a dilemma between the equally implausible scenarios of an infinite past and a finite past where something was generated out of nothing, and that there is in modern theology and cosmology a good chance of finding an escape from that dilemma through the challenging notion of atemporal causation.

Acknowledgements

I thank Nat (Unidian) for his patient explanations of inflationary cosmology and the quantum foam, upon which the second half of this essay is based, for his review of this essay, and for cleverly coming up with the thread title. Likewise I thank Elizabeth for her review and her very helpful suggestions. I also send out a big "welcome back" to Pye.

Edits

Edit: reworded the first sentence of this essay to deal with Diebert's criticism - changed the phrasing "of reality: that causes go back and back without limit" to "of time: that causes go back and back without limit".

Edit: added section headings.
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

causes go back and back without limit
This is not being "taught" or suggested here as far as I know. Causality is a principle that doesn't have to be expressed only in terms of time or space although in many cases it does help to make the point. The arrow of time is just one expression of causality, a mode of expression which in itself has some known and many unknown causes or dependencies.

When looking at it from this perspective the above essay is not really addressing the issue of causality at all and the context remains as a mildly uninteresting essay on time. Replacing the principle of causality with a "quantum principle" is a downgrade in terms of quality thinking.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
causes go back and back without limit
This is not being "taught" or suggested here as far as I know.
Here are some quotes from Poison for the Heart that indicate otherwise:

"Call me patronizing all you like. I am the teacher, and it is my duty to tell you when you are wrong."

"Why must things have an ultimate cause? Why can't causes stem back endlessly?"

"Indeed, there is no beginning to beginnings."

"Thus I say that all is beginningless."

"The words had existed from the beginningless past."

Also if you review the threads that I linked to, you will notice at least one senior member of this forum defending the notion of infinite regress.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Causality is a principle that doesn't have to be expressed only in terms of time or space although in many cases it does help to make the point. The arrow of time is just one expression of causality, a mode of expression which in itself has some known and many unknown causes or dependencies.

When looking at it from this perspective the above essay is not really addressing the issue of causality at all
Near the start of the essay I specifically limited it to a specific aspect of causation when I wrote: "Around these parts, causality is defined very broadly so that it covers a variety of phenomena, but here we're concerned with temporal causality: that variety of causality in which cause precedes effect in time." So it was never intended to address causality in the terms that word is used on this forum, but rather in terms it is typically used.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:and the context remains as a mildly uninteresting essay on time.
Absent "mildly uninteresting", that's exactly what it was intended to be, including an examination of various models of origins.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Replacing the principle of causality with a "quantum principle" is a downgrade in terms of quality thinking.
What do you understand to be "the principle of causality"? I can almost guarantee you that I wasn't trying to replace what you take to be the principle of causality with the quantum principle. If your understanding is anything like the way that QRS view the principle of causality, then the quantum principle slots right in there as simply another way in which it manifests.
Steven Coyle

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Steven Coyle »

The Big Bang is like popcorn - just eat it. Jk.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Unidian »

Replacing the principle of causality with a "quantum principle" is a downgrade in terms of quality thinking.
What's "quality thinking?" Does it need to have any connection with modern scientific understanding? I ask because the idea of a fully causal, mechanistic universe has been discredited for over a century. Quantum mechanics may not be "quality thinking" in your opinion, but it reflects what we know about reality much more accurately than Victorian-era ideas about the supremacy of causality.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
causes go back and back without limit
This is not being "taught" or suggested here as far as I know.
Here are some quotes from Poison for the Heart that indicate otherwise:

"Call me patronizing all you like. I am the teacher, and it is my duty to tell you when you are wrong."

"Why must things have an ultimate cause? Why can't causes stem back endlessly?"

"Indeed, there is no beginning to beginnings."

"Thus I say that all is beginningless."

"The words had existed from the beginningless past."
Denying the existence of a 'beginning' is something other than stating that causes going back and back in time until it all fades out of sight. There's no way of knowing for sure how far things go back or not but one can know they always will have causes: all that not constitutes our definition of the thing is all that stretches out in all dimensions conceivable, or better yet: disappearing from our perceptual horizon.

Kevin's question: "why can't causes stem back endlessly" could be criticized as it sounds like he suggests that causes stem back endlessly in time and that would somehow constitute causality. But it's obvious also time itself has causes so there's no reason for regression.
Also if you review the threads that I linked to, you will notice at least one senior member of this forum defending the notion of infinite regress.
Tomas is the only real senior here of course. :-)
So it was never intended to address causality in the terms that word is used on this forum, but rather in terms it is typically used.
That might be so but you start with defining the taught principle as 'beginninglessness': causes that go back and back without limit. And announcing you're gonna debunk that principle. This is the only part I commented on because it's mistaken and the rest of the essay lacks contextual meaning as there's nothing to debunk, there's no opponent.

Then you continue you contradict the first paragraph by admitting causality is defined "around these parts" differently but you choose the concern yourself with temporal causality. If you want to address temporal causality then say so right away, because now you try to change the broad version of causality toward temporal manifestations which you then start analyzing. In other words: you change the subject.
that's exactly what it was intended to be, including an examination of various models of origins.
But you didn't qualify it as such, you announce it to be some kind of debunking of the philosophical principle of causality. And then suggest that the 'quantum principle' is something equally philosophical while you're lifting it right out of the scientific, mathematical, limited context.
If your understanding is anything like the way that QRS view the principle of causality, then the quantum principle slots right in there as simply another way in which it manifests.
Well, everything slots right in as a way causality manifests. That's why I called it mildly uninteresting but not hogwash or something.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Unidian wrote:
Replacing the principle of causality with a "quantum principle" is a downgrade in terms of quality thinking.
What's "quality thinking?" Does it need to have any connection with modern scientific understanding? I ask because the idea of a fully causal, mechanistic universe has been discredited for over a century. Quantum mechanics may not be "quality thinking" in your opinion, but it reflects what we know about reality much more accurately than Victorian-era ideas about the supremacy of causality.
What I meant with it is existential philosophy, thinking that touches the core or our existence and demonstrates a meaningful grasp on it.

A causal, deterministic universe is not discredited at all! I think you have it confused with Newtonian mechanics or something. Last time I looked and asked the ones leading the field of QM, they didn't share your optimism about acausal origination that much. A couple of hidden variables and multiverse theories are healthy competing models for what is being calculated and (not as much as people think) observed. The existence of a mystery here and there shouldn't give one reason to even start dismissing the supremacy of causality. But feel free to embrace the mystery and revel in the glory of true randomness.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Blair »

Unidian wrote:
Quantum mechanics may not be "quality thinking" in your opinion, but it reflects what we know about reality much more accurately than Victorian-era ideas about the supremacy of causality.
No, just as in any thinking, it just reflects what the observer knows about reality.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
So it was never intended to address causality in the terms that word is used on this forum, but rather in terms it is typically used.
That might be so but you start with defining the taught principle as 'beginninglessness': causes that go back and back without limit. And announcing you're gonna debunk that principle. This is the only part I commented on because it's mistaken and the rest of the essay lacks contextual meaning as there's nothing to debunk, there's no opponent.
I quoted to you from Poison from the Heart to show you that you're wrong, that it is taught here, but when it came to the sentence (a question) that almost exactly mirrored mine, all that you could say was that it could be criticised, not "Oh, hey, I guess you're right - that principle is taught around here after all". I linked you to threads where senior members defend the notion of an infinite regress of temporal causes, and the best you could do was a joke about seniors. What happened to honest responses?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Then you continue you contradict the first paragraph by admitting causality is defined "around these parts" differently but you choose the concern yourself with temporal causality. If you want to address temporal causality then say so right away, because now you try to change the broad version of causality toward temporal manifestations which you then start analyzing. In other words: you change the subject.
So you're criticising me for waiting until the second paragraph to clarify the type of causation under discussion. I was going to say, "Jeez, mate, give me a break", but perhaps there is a lack of clarity there that I didn't intend to be. I never intended for the introduction to be understood as referring to causation more broadly, and if you read it that way then I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. I figured that any lack of clarity would be remedied in the second paragraph.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
that's exactly what it was intended to be, including an examination of various models of origins.
But you didn't qualify it as such, you announce it to be some kind of debunking of the philosophical principle of causality.
Again, I didn't intend for the introduction to be interpreted as referring to the general principle of causality as understood here, I intended for it to be understood as referring only to temporal causation, and I clarified that in the second paragraph.

Perhaps I should have chosen the word "time" rather than "reality" in the introduction.

Edited for clarity (Carl has already quoted the original): changed "infinite regress of causes" to "infinite regress of temporal causes".
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Carl G »

guest_of_logic wrote:I linked you to threads where senior members defend the notion of an infinite regress of causes, and the best you could do was a joke about seniors. What happened to honest responses?
Please do not expect honest responses, or at least, logical or clear responses, at this time. As you may have noticed, none of the founders of this forum has been posting here for some time now, and frankly, no one else here possesses any significant degree of wisdom. This, again, you may have noticed by the dearth of coherent or substantial postings here in the last many months.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Blair »

I think its most noticeable with your stupid remark.

Wisdom is not measured by volume of words, in fact quite the opposite. Until you understand this, you understand very little at all.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Unidian »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Unidian wrote:Replacing the principle of causality with a "quantum principle" is a downgrade in terms of quality thinking.
What's "quality thinking?" Does it need to have any connection with modern scientific understanding? I ask because the idea of a fully causal, mechanistic universe has been discredited for over a century. Quantum mechanics may not be "quality thinking" in your opinion, but it reflects what we know about reality much more accurately than Victorian-era ideas about the supremacy of causality.
What I meant with it is existential philosophy, thinking that touches the core or our existence and demonstrates a meaningful grasp on it.

A causal, deterministic universe is not discredited at all! I think you have it confused with Newtonian mechanics or something.
No, I'm a determinist myself. Determinism applies at the macroscopic level - the level where everything important to us occurs. It doesn't mean that causality is a universal ontological reality, though. Physical causality emerges from the acausal. It is an emergent phenomenon. Causality in the deeper "existential" sense is just garden-variety metaphysics, and is not actually meaningful.
Last time I looked and asked the ones leading the field of QM, they didn't share your optimism about acausal origination that much. A couple of hidden variables and multiverse theories are healthy competing models for what is being calculated and (not as much as people think) observed.
Okay, fair enough. I'll give you that. The multiverse ideas are gaining some ground, and are fully deterministic. I'm aware of this, but since the point of Laird's essay was to question certain notions of causality, we focused on the interpretations consistent with that perspective.
The existence of a mystery here and there shouldn't give one reason to even start dismissing the supremacy of causality. But feel free to embrace the mystery and revel in the glory of true randomness.
Yes, the insinuation that it's feminine-minded doesn't escape me, so have no fear that it was wasted. ;)

Causality doesn't dispel existential mystery anyway. Only Maharishi Quinn thinks it does, because it allows him to imagine himself to be omniscient.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

guest_of_logic wrote:Perhaps I should have chosen the word "time" rather than "reality" in the introduction.
I've edited the essay to make that change. I hope that it doesn't cause any confusion - I made a note at the bottom of the essay that I've done so.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Jason »

guest_of_logic wrote:One of the principles commonly taught around these parts is the beginninglessness [I know that neither this word nor even "beginningless" are in the dictionary but I just can't find words that are in the dictionary and that do the same job, so I'm going to use those words freely]
I'm sorry, but there's just no way I can take seriously anything that comes from the mind of someone who displays such blatant disrespect for the English language. ;)
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Jason »

I don't really want to discuss QSR philosophy, and I have read very little of your essay Laird, so maybe this will just confuse matters....but because I like you so much, and I'm feeling in need of some human connection with one of the seemingly relatively rare humans who I feel I can identify with on many levels(or perhaps it is merely a current deficit on my part that makes me believe that this would be rare), I'll give you this:

Time can be seen as a cause itself, in the QSR philosophy. Thus, to speak of causes and time, is, when seen from this perspective, only really to speak of causes and yet more causes. So I think that you are possibly making a fundamental misinterpretation there.

Also, I think it might be worthwhile to clearly differentiate between "infinite", as in an immensely larger number of things, and "Infinite" as in the entirety of reality. You may remember the analogy I gave, in a another post, of a room representing the entirety of reality, aka the Infinite. In that analogy I also showed that the entirety of reality, the Infinite, can be composed of a finite number of things/causes(I also want to note that I don't subscribe to the QSR philosophy, I'm merely investigating and probing it.) Maybe something worth thinking about.

Perhaps more importantly though, I wonder why you have apparently put so much effort into trying to debate/debunk this area of QSR philosophy. Is it important to you? Or is it merely passing time, a hobby? Do their views on this subject(or, at least, your interpretation of their views), confront you in some deep way? Or perhaps some other reason/s?
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

Heya Jason,

Always glad to hear from you - I've actually been wondering where you've been of late, and missing your contributions. You make too much sense for us to lose your ongoing posts. Thanks for taking the time to respond in this thread.
Jason wrote:Time can be seen as a cause itself, in the QSR philosophy. Thus, to speak of causes and time, is, when seen from this perspective, only really to speak of causes and yet more causes. So I think that you are possibly making a fundamental misinterpretation there.
It's an interesting point that you make, but I don't think that it ultimately affects my reasoning, because there's strong evidence that QRS do believe in a beginningless past and that causes recede back infinitely, and it was that notion, and that notion alone, that I was writing to debunk in the first half of my essay. We can have the discussion about the full QRS view of causality in a separate essay.
Jason wrote:Also, I think it might be worthwhile to clearly differentiate between "infinite", as in an immensely larger number of things, and "Infinite" as in the entirety of reality.
You mean, like I did at the end of the second paragraph when I wrote: "I want to make it clear that the type of infinity that I'm referring to here is solely a mathematical infinite with respect to time; it is distinct from the Infinite used around these parts as a synonym for the Totality"? :-)
Jason wrote:You may remember the analogy I gave, in a another post, of a room representing the entirety of reality, aka the Infinite. In that analogy I also showed that the entirety of reality, the Infinite, can be composed of a finite number of things/causes(I also want to note that I don't subscribe to the QSR philosophy, I'm merely investigating and probing it.) Maybe something worth thinking about.
Yes, I remember that analogy - I recently commented on David's response to it in my own response in that thread. Again, it doesn't affect my essay but it was a point well made at the time.
Jason wrote:Perhaps more importantly though, I wonder why you have apparently put so much effort into trying to debate/debunk this area of QSR philosophy. Is it important to you? Or is it merely passing time, a hobby? Do their views on this subject(or, at least, your interpretation of their views), confront you in some deep way? Or perhaps some other reason/s?
Nat asked me a similar question recently, although he asked it of my general engagement with QRS philosophy, and not of my engagement with this specific area of that philosophy. To save effort, I'll copy in here an edited version of my answer to Nat's more general question. It's pretty similar to the answer I'd give to the more specific one anyway:

Probably part of it is circumstantial: that Kev is my neighbour and I hear it all the time from him. Or at least I used to - we don't talk philosophy as much now, seeing as we pretty much know where each other stands. Part of it is because I love a good conflict of ideas (I was a high school debater), and part of it is because some of what they say does actually resonate with me, but for different reasons than they give. The stuff they say about dropping one's ego and not accepting boosts to one's ego - that sort of stuff I tend to have an intuitive appreciation for, but not because I think that my ego doesn't really exist as they argue should be the cause for that sort of attitude.

So in part it's about having a rough-and-tumble disagreement, in part it's about identifying where I disagree and why, and in the process furthering my own understanding of myself and my own thoughts and philosophy, and in part it's about identifying where I agree and whether the reasons that I agree are the same as or different from theirs, and what that difference means.

A lot of it is simply intellectual exercise too - something I can get my teeth into without having to study a lot for. I enjoy learning about other people and what they think, and then once I understand them well enough, analysing (or deconstructing, as the case may be) those people and those thoughts. Critical thinking skills require practice. :-)
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Kevin Solway »

Laird,

I describe the past as "beginningless", and I might also say there is an "infinite past" to suggest the same idea. That is, it is infinite from the perspective of the present, and looking back to the beginningless past. It doesn't matter that time goes forwards, since I can conceive of things any way I want.

The "past", and the future too, is something that appears to our minds, and can't be demonstrated empirically. So the issue of an "actual" past time seems possibly unnecessary and out of place, depending on the meaning of "actual".

The passage of time appears to us because of the changes produced by cause and effect. So as long as causes and effects appear to us, so does time.

And since there can't be anything without a cause, it follows that time must be beginningless.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Pye »

guest-of-logic quotes:"Thus I say that all is beginningless."
(hi Laird). This zarathustrian declaration you are quoting is bedfellows with another more classically stated notion from existentialism: "There is only existence." It's not how Kevin or David might have meant it, but it amounts to the same general sentiment. After all, to assume to refer to things prior to existence/"all" is to refer to nothing, right? Existence being all that which is; and non-existence being all that which isn't. As in nothing. How much talking can we do about nothing?

Early existential thinking sought to take after all these metaphysically tinged notions of a time when there was assumed to be nothing, out of which came something, i.e. a beginning. As far as we understand causality, something can never come from nothing. And if it did, it exceeds all laws of causality we could understand, and hence, belongs to a category called the divine - that is, not-earthly. Insert God here, as first-cause; or the self-causing cause. This is the only way to logically grasp a beginning that was itself somehow not fronted by causes in existence prior to it. To attempt to speak of a time or circumstance before existence is to blow an enormous amount of words at nothing. We would be talking about nothing - metaphorically and literally.

Indeed, if we say of infinite regress that it is impossible - there must be some beginning - then the limits of human logic are forced to deal with this something-coming-out-of-nothing. Again, I am without the reference, but it is my understanding that astro-physicists have for some time now located matter floating around the cosmos that appears to have been extant prior to the big-bang. Even with THAT as a beginning (big-bang), we are forced to reckon - logically - with the existence of the matter involved in this singularity point. Logically, one would assume it did not get there "by itself" and that it did not explode for "no reason."

There is only existence hammered the early existentialists to every metaphysician who bent his logic to speak prior to that - to a beginning, first-cause, or what-have-you. To speak of anything else to is speak of nothing. And nothing is impossible to talk about. It is easy to see why the rational human animal led himself to God to occupy this non-causal notion of a "start" to it all. What is interesting to note is that the strength of this causal logic demands that this self-same causal logic be abandoned if it wants to grasp a beginning.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

Kev, thanks for responding.
Kevin Solway wrote:I describe the past as "beginningless", and I might also say there is an "infinite past" to suggest the same idea. That is, it is infinite from the perspective of the present, and looking back to the beginningless past. It doesn't matter that time goes forwards, since I can conceive of things any way I want.
You're essentially providing the response that I rebutted in my essay, so I guess that you didn't find my rebuttal convincing. I take it, then, that you don't accept the first problem that I tried to express in as many ways as I could think of: the problem of saying that time has, actually traversed an infinity, a saying that is vexed in a way that saying of time's future direction that it is approaching towards infinity but will never reach that infinity does not suffer.

How about the paradoxes that I raised - do they have any bearing on whether you consider an infinite past to be viable?
Kevin Solway wrote:The "past", and the future too, is something that appears to our minds, and can't be demonstrated empirically.
Granted, this is an empirical issue, and it requires us to make an assumption that time does flow.
Kevin Solway wrote:So the issue of an "actual" past time seems possibly unnecessary and out of place, depending on the meaning of "actual".
I explained what I meant by "actual" with respect to time in the essay:
guest_of_logic wrote:To say that a moment is past is to say that it was once the present moment, before the present moment moved forward from that moment. All past moments have been "actualised" in this manner, and it follows from this that all of the past has been actualised, which is what the phrasing of the objection - "actual infinite" - refers to. The fact that the past has been actualised means that the present moment has traversed over the entirety of that past moving in a forwards direction. It is not the case that it will happen, and will be a continuous and never-ending process, as is the case with the future; it is the case that it has happened and is a process which has ended: the entirety of the past has been traversed by the ever-moving marker that is the present moment.
Moving on to your next paragraph:
Kevin Solway wrote:The passage of time appears to us because of the changes produced by cause and effect. So as long as causes and effects appear to us, so does time.

And since there can't be anything without a cause, it follows that time must be beginningless.
You might not have read the second half of my essay, but it explains how time could have an atemporal cause, using the quantum principle from modern cosmology as an example of what this might mean. What do you think of that possibility?

------------------------------------

Pye, thank you for your response too.

I suspect, as I suspect of Kev, that you didn't make it to the second half of my essay, because, as I mentioned to Kev above, it provides an alternative to both beginninglessness and a-beginning-of-something-from-nothing, by positing an atemporal cause for time itself.

By the way, if my suspicions are correct, I don't blame either of you - it's a terribly long opening post for GF.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Pye »

Laird writes: This is the most troubling aspect of the model: that an atemporal source generates temporal effects, especially given that time is an ongoing, continuous flow.
Well, as you have caveated well, quantum physicists are not immune from creating metaphysical entities, too, as illustrated here:
. . . . that out of a quantum principle, quantum fluctuations create new universes which bring space and time into existence. [emphasis mine]
It is, of course, not the principle of gravity itself (or rather, the bend of space-time, if you prefer) that creates the movements of things-in-the-universe. Those things - in existence - create gravity by their appearance in the world, hence, their existential interactions. The "principle" is not waiting there to direct things, but rather, the things are creating the principle. I would say the same for the atemporal source for temporality. It is the same wolf in sheep's clothing. It is not 'out of principles' that things manifest, in my estimation. It is the other way around. Indeed, such a notion suffers from every worrisome point you brought it up to.

My remedial post above reiterating the thought-problems of something/nothing that you already stated is meant to draw us closer to this "dropping off" point and the problems that ensue when one attempts to speak of things as things before they existed . . . . One is stuck wandering out onto the vague plains of a universe created intentionally - for "intention" is also an attempt to visualize a world before there is a world - to speak of a disembodied phenomenon before there is phenomena to manifest it. A quantum physicist is not immune from making this most basic mistake.

If there are "quantum fluctuations," then there is already a universe reflecting them.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by guest_of_logic »

Pye,

Yes, I added caveats because I do find aspects of this model troublesome, and I appreciate you tackling them.
Pye wrote:It is, of course, not the principle of gravity itself (or rather, the bend of space-time, if you prefer) that creates the movements of things-in-the-universe. Those things - in existence - create gravity by their appearance in the world, hence, their existential interactions. The "principle" is not waiting there to direct things, but rather, the things are creating the principle.
You say that "things are creating the principle", so presumably the things have some property or properties that lead to the creation of the principle, but couldn't you say that "a collection of properties of things" is just as subject to the negative assertion that you made of a principle: in other words, couldn't we likewise say that 'the "collection of properties of things" is not waiting there to direct things'? Why not simply accept that a principle is of necessity something abstract, whose ontology we do not understand (at least I don't understand it)...
Pye wrote:I would say the same for the atemporal source for temporality. It is the same wolf in sheep's clothing. It is not 'out of principles' that things manifest, in my estimation. It is the other way around.
... and whose ontology might, for all we know, be one that is devoid of time and space whilst nevertheless being able to affect time and space?
Pye wrote:Indeed, such a notion suffers from every worrisome point you brought it up to.
True, however it is (to my mind) better than the two alternatives of beginninglessness and beginning-of-time-out-of-absolute-nothingness.
Pye wrote:My remedial post above reiterating the thought-problems of something/nothing that you already stated is meant to draw us closer to this "dropping off" point and the problems that ensue when one attempts to speak of things as things before they existed
That highlighted "before" is the trouble, because the quantum principle is atemporal - it does not exist "before", "during", or "after" the universe: it is outside of time. Nevertheless, from outside of time, it produces effects within time. I know that it's a head-trip, but as I said earlier, it seems more plausible to me than the alternatives.
Pye wrote:. . . . One is stuck wandering out onto the vague plains of a universe created intentionally - for "intention" is also an attempt to visualize a world before there is a world - to speak of a disembodied phenomenon before there is phenomena to manifest it. A quantum physicist is not immune from making this most basic mistake.

If there are "quantum fluctuations," then there is already a universe reflecting them.
Again, words like "already" don't apply to the atemporal quantum principle.

In closing I want to emphasise that I do agree at least that there are some troubling aspects to this model, and I'm not going to be dogmatic about it being the definitive truth, but it's a potential avenue to explore, so I appreciate the dialogue.

-----------------------

Jason,

I figured that you deserved a more specific answer to the questions that followed your comment, "Perhaps more importantly though, I wonder why you have apparently put so much effort into trying to debate/debunk this area of QSR philosophy", so here it is:

In part, I'm motivated by a desire to develop and present to others comprehensive and definitive arguments and solutions, so that I can say to myself "Right, well, I've dealt with that properly then and can now move on". I've always found it irksome that the concept of an infinite past is taken for granted here, and this is as definitive and comprehensive an attack that I felt I could make on it. It's not that I'm deeply confronted by the notion, it's more that I think that it doesn't make sense, and want to convey why to people who hold the opposite opinion.

I hope that that answers your questions - let me know if not.

Oh, and:
Jason wrote:I'm sorry, but there's just no way I can take seriously anything that comes from the mind of someone who displays such blatant disrespect for the English language.
Well I wouldn't want to be read by someone whose imagination is so appallingly restricted. So there!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote: but when it came to the sentence (a question) that almost exactly mirrored mine, all that you could say was that it could be criticised, not "Oh, hey, I guess you're right - that principle is taught around here after all".
To me it seems quite a stretch to claim that the question "why can't causes stem back endlessly" somehow would equal the principle being taught when it comes to causality. Moreover the question in context is part of a longer response to the argument of "necessary Being". The question just shows a possibility that doesn't seem to try to tell you how causation works but as a reaction to a claimed necessity of a first cause. Why not many more, why not two or two zillion? Must there be a cause at all? As you found out in your essay, the quantum realm itself already defies the concept of 'thing' or 'boundary' just like the concept of 'Nature' or the 'All' which we already know cannot have a cause.
I never intended for the introduction to be understood as referring to causation more broadly, and if you read it that way then I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. I figured that any lack of clarity would be remedied in the second paragraph.
Fair enough. But please realize you did state that "causes that go back and back without limit" is being taught as principle. Or in other words that time as commonly measured would have no beginning. Still I can not relate to this as a viable target based on what I've been reading here over the years. And all you came up with was a rhetorical question to prove it was 'teaching'.
I intended for it to be understood as referring only to temporal causation, and I clarified that in the second paragraph.
My point still being that I don't think anyone was implying space or time necessarily would have to be infinite. Causes could be found in hypothetical ideas that go beyond this but for all we know things will still be caused, temporal in our experience, ultimately in our philosophy.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Unidian wrote: Physical causality emerges from the acausal. It is an emergent phenomenon.
If one would call the emergence itself causality then one has to be careful when thinking of this "acausal" possessing any reality that we'd have to include in the question of how to address existence meaningfully.
Causality in the deeper "existential" sense is just garden-variety metaphysics, and is not actually meaningful.
There's some great usage in keeping away the bugs! It would be interesting to hear what you do really find meaningful though. The acausal perhaps?
Causality doesn't dispel existential mystery anyway. Only Maharishi Quinn thinks it does, because it allows him to imagine himself to be omniscient.
And even Solway wrote in PftH: Secondly, no law says that all things must have causes. Show me a single cause! Show me where that cause begins and ends - it cannot be done, so why all this talk of "causes", in the context of Laird's quote.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Pye »

guest-of-logic asks: Why not simply accept that a principle is of necessity something abstract, whose ontology we do not understand (at least I don't understand it)...
Yes, it is an abstraction, and hence, not an "it" at all!
guest again: couldn't you say that "a collection of properties of things" is just as subject to the negative assertion that you made of a principle: in other words, couldn't we likewise say that 'the "collection of properties of things" is not waiting there to direct things'?
Yes, exactly. What I am trying to assert here, though, is that a thing has no properties in itself until there is a world against which to manifest those properties. What would, say, gravity be to Jupiter, if there were no other things in the universe to influence its movement? Gravity would not belong to Jupiter as an inherent property without the world-setting in which it finds itself. We will never be able to assert with confidence that such properties themselves belong to the things themselves - and this is true as well of the endless discussions of human nature - things assumed dormant or manifest to belong to the human in every case. Those things can only belong to the human in the exact case that brings them existentially about. And said case never unfolds in a vacuum, but in concrete interaction with all that is in existence.

This last, I think, provides the most ground for error in the science of causality. To "isolate" a phenomenon in order for it to reveal its causal linkage is to change the very thing you are looking at. It is no longer in the world setting in which it is otherwise operating. This alone, I submit, will make it impossible for all the rosy projections of folks who believe the human being can be corrected, so to speak, by looking at its pieces-parts and addressing them through this isolated linkage (like AI). One will definitely produce something, but it will not be what is was. (I realize, with the general misanthropy about the place, this would be good news to some . . . but personally, I don't think there's anything of a wholesale nature "wrong" with humans in the first place - certainly not in some cosmic sense of error, in need of salvation).
guest again, in reference to an atemporal source for time(/space): and whose ontology might, for all we know, be one that is devoid of time and space whilst nevertheless being able to affect time and space?
Ontology - as a study of Being - would have to belong to things-that-be; the nature of being itself. In other words, things already in existence. And (so far!), we are simply unable to see or comprehend anything without both space and time - the sensory grounds of existence itself. Even people's so-called spiritual experiences have to do with some movement in the grounds of space and time - even and especially that those experiences have to do with the alteration of how these are usually sensed. I appreciate the reach of your mind in positing the existence of a condition "devoid of space and time" - but one can see how close to the 'divine' this would have to be declared. In fact, this is very close in sentiment to theistic descriptions of god: the power to bring into being without exhibiting the same properties it creates (e.g. death, adherence to physical law, etc.)

Just so we don't have to make excuses for playing word-games here, consider as well that some of what I have been writing here is also in illustration of the possible limits of logical thinking, too. And yes, I only have logic with which to dismantle logic as well, and hence it would still be logic in simply a new shape. It begs that we wonder what-all about existence cannot be seen/expressed by us because of our own inescapable dependence upon these logistical rules. It definitely begs that we be wary of any phenomenon that has been studied in isolation, as a for-itself, in-itself kind of thing. It will not be what you set out to look at in the first place.

I can appreciate your questions and the possible resolutions to the beginning/no beginning situation - that you posit something else to triangulate this binary. Like all posters, I'm just heading straight toward the issues from it that interest me most :)
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

Post by Unidian »

For the record, I did not suggest the use of the term "principle" in regard to quantum creation, and wouldn't have, because it tends to suggest something metaphysical and abstract. It isn't so much that there is an utterly transcendent "quantum principle" giving rise to things in these various ideas of quantum creation, but rather a certain sort of quantum field which has at least mathematical (if not material) existence. In regard to to the "something from nothing" problem, a lot depends on how one defines the terms themselves. Is the underlying quantum field "nothing?" Materially, yes, but mathematically, no. And given that some theorists (ie Tegmark) think that mathematical existence is equivalent to physical existence, the question becomes even more opaque. Laird and I only discussed these issues for a day or two, and there is a lot that wasn't touched on. I was uncomfortable with the use of "quantum principle" on my first reading of it, but too lazy to bother going into it, given that several whole new cans of worms are involved.

Also, regarding the "something from nothing" problem, there are other approaches which attempt to resolve it differently. See Peter Lynds' paper "On a finite universe with no beginning or end" for one interesting example.
There's some great usage in keeping away the bugs! It would be interesting to hear what you do really find meaningful though. The acausal perhaps?
"Keeping away the bugs," eh? Hehe... I'm aware that the prevailing narrative here is that anyone who does not embrace Quinnological doctrine is primarily concerned with swatting away Truth and hiding from its dangerous consequences, so I guess that implication comes with the territory.

The irony, of course, is that this is coming from people whose own Victorian-era ideas must be protected at all costs from the whole of 20th century philosophy, which is utterly ignored here, as well as from any aspect of scientific inquiry which would potentially threaten the supremacy of the metaphysical ideas which allow them to imagine themselves the guardians of Absolute Truth.
I live in a tub.
Locked